Shadrach

Quote: jetdriven I dunno, John, it looks like an incipient spin to me. That looks like too much roll rate for ailerons only. You can see he is holding about 1/2 to 1/3rd left aileron as they go vertical. Still, this is not a place you want to be in a Mooney.

I weighed all of the crap that I pulled out verses what I put in and it turned out to be about a wash. The super sound proofing/ultra-leather that I used to replace the ceiling pieces was actually lighter than the foam rubber/cloth stuff that I removed.

Quote: N4352H The harness is rated at far more than 10g's. I promise you.

Quote: M016576 The Go-Around... It doesn't have to be a high workload event. Just take things one step at a time and try not to feel like you have to "rush". The biggest mistake that I see people make is that they try to do too much too quickly. Once you make the decision to go around (MDA/DH, etc), then it's easy. Arrest the rate of descent. Breathe. get your climb going. Breathe. Configure (if necessary).Breathe. Talk. Breathe. fly the procedure. It all goes back to aviate, navigate, communicate... and just taking things one step at a time (and don't feel rushed... 80kts is actually really slow in the "scale" of an instrument approach.. you've got time!). The best thing you can do to improve your missed approach (IMHO) is to study the missed approach procedure closely prior to shooting the approach. As long as you know that, or at least the first moves, then you won't be trying to climb, configure and squint at your chart for the procedure all at the same time. Regardless, the first big steps are always the same: power, arrest the sink rate, start a climb, then go from there... Of course, it's easy to say that here in my 1G chair in front of a computer screen as the sun shines brightly outside!!!!

JG, I'm pretty selective about when and where I do short field work. I acknowledge that your points are valid; I think we differ on the unpredictability of the wing, but then, we fly different models. My F model gives a very recognizable buffet prior to stalling, You're correct in mentioning the MGW differences, but in a prior post you also said your Bravo has never seen 2600lbs. I have flown my F into a number <2500 strips at or near MGW (2740lbs). So there is a range (albeit small) where our aircraft intersect in terms of weight. I would never chastise someone for being too conservative in their flying, but I think that it can sometimes foster an attitude in which bad habit's develop. We can agree to disagree on whats practical and safe. I have no death-wish nor do I have your experience, but I know my airplane well and it's just not the proverbial snake waiting to strike that I feel your comments suggest these aircraft are. I have a neighbor who works MX for corp flight dept. that has 2 Conquests, 2 Seneca IVs, and a Bravo. He flies all 3 types. He has (lucky SOB) personal use of the Bravo. He is flight safety Mooney trained. He was uncomfortable (but is getting better) going into to anything shorter than 4000ft with the Bravo. I think the quality of his ($6000 IIRC) training was lacking to say the least. I took him up on a short hop to 3000ft strip and upon making the first turn off, he said a few interesting things: 1) "This thing lands like a 172." I told him that it really did not, but that excess energy on landing destroys/damages more Mooneys in the landing phase of flight then flying slow ever has. 2) "I fly final at 80-85kts." My feeling is that no certified light single needs to fly final at 85kts unless it is over gross or iced up. Many airplanes will tolerate it just fine but that is too fast for a Bravo even at MGW. 3) "I think this thing will handily out-climb the Bravo to 3000ft." This may be true, I don't know. The chief MX and I disagree on engine operations as well as full power fuel flow, so he may be giving up climb for cooling. I think we can agree on the fact that we both fly different versions of the same airframe and that yours is certainly less forgiving. If you have a chance to fly an earlier version some time, I'd love to here you thoughts on the differences. I'm still lobbying for some rt seat Bravo time with my hangar neighbor, but as it's a corporate plane I doubt it will happen.

Looks more like a stall, insipient spin that's converted into a spiral...it's badly rigged or he's demonstrating poor technique.

Quote: testwest +1 for Dan and Ross. Ross's explainations are dead nuts on. Also +1 for Ross on inflight diagnosis of the bad mag...

Quote: Swingin Mags checked good on the ground for both legs @ 1700RPM. CHTs were normal for all phases of flight. Shadrach: What would you recommend running instead of 50LOP, and why? Cruiser: EGTs are within 20 of each other. #3 peaks last so that's what I set LOP off of. #4 is always about 10 degrees cooler when LOP.

Quote: Cruiser yep, sounds like a spark plug or the plug wire on #4. EGT values in and by themselves are not critical numbers but they do offer insight to engine operation as you have seen. 50°F LOP on the leanest cylinder makes your richer cylinder even leaner, what is the spread between richest and leanest?

John, There's some really good info in your post about ground effect and induced drag. However, I disagree with you about the danger of flying Mooneys at <1.3 * Vso. I fly my F into and out of an 1800ft grass strip as well as an 1800ft with a 277ft dsp threshold and a 2.1% downhill gradient. Full flaps and 1.1 * Vso on short final for short field work is the only way to do this. I've been doing it for years and it has not "killed me" or even come close. What do you mean by this statement? but if you fly it like a Skylane or a Bonanza, it will kill you and does quite often as clearly shown by accident reports. Please give me some examples of the accident reports that you're referring to? We lose far more Mooneys to pilots who are afraid to...or simply don't know how to slow down then we do to folks flying too slow on approach. I appreciate your experience, but I think you're doing a disservice to others that might take it as gospel. "dragging" a money into the round-out under power is poor technique. For short fields, by the time the plane is short final, one should be maintaining 1.1*Vso with pitch, wing unloaded in the descent and full aft elevator in the flare. There is no float and ground effect will help arrest the descent. It works and it works well. The only downside is that to the unaccustomed it feels a bit like you're falling towards the ground, but that's a comfort issue, not a safety issue.

Landing 1/2 flaps is fine if you feel you need more control authority for crosswind. However if you flew the same speeds with 1/2 that you do with full, then what have you gained? Increased control authority comes from increased air flow over the control surfaces. Here is what I think you're missing. The likely reason that 1/2 flaps "felt better" is that you're typically too fast on approach. By going 1/2 flaps you effectively increased your stall speed (I disagree with Ned's assertion above). I assure you that Mooneys don't float more with full flaps, it's just that pilots flying Mooneys too fast, float less with 1/2 flaps. I routinely fly into an 1800 and a 1600ft (dsp thrshld) strips, and I'd never go into either with 1/2 flaps. Visability over the nose is also significantly improved with full flaps. Your Missile will climb just fine on a missed with full flaps, but this matters little, as most instrument approaches end at runways of sufficient length to fly no flap approach. What you do when IMC on an approach has little to do with how you ought to fly patterns and approach when VFR.

It appears that one of the spark plugs on #4 is going south. A bad probe typically gives very unstable readings. What happened to CHT? Some other things worth noting: 1) A mag check would have told you a lot. If something like this happens and you're alone, a mag check is a good idea. If you have passengers, then it might not be, depending on their experience/comfort level. 2) Why are you 50LOP at 8500 and up? That is way too lean at that altitude to my way of thinking. You're likely leaving 10kts (or more) on the table running that lean at that alt. 3) A cylinder fired by a single plug has a much slower combustion event. The result is that the combustion event is still taking place when the exhaust valve opens. This means that the EGT probe is know being hit with burning F/A mixture, which is why EGTs increase on a sinlge plug. If you ever lose a mag in flight you will see a uniform EGT rise and typically a slight CHT drop.

Quote: Sven My photos of the ascent and descent indicate that there were no gross anomalies visible. Everything seemed to be in its place. The questions I have are as follows. What caused the pilot to turn toward the crowd instead of inside the circle as the well-practiced protocol required? This plane was likely no longer under control, and the pilot barely conscience if at all. What caused the pilot to make an abrupt, almost violent ascent? The trim tab that you mentioned departing the airplane was not a rudder tab, but an elevator tab. When it departed the aircraft, the stick likely went full aft at ~450mph. That's easily >10Gs. Did G forces have an affect on the pilot? No question... Was the wobbling at the top of the high speed arc due to a mechanical failure or a result of the pilot regaining consciousness? Not having seen it, I will not speculate... Was the plane traveling too fast to have stalled? Depends on what point after the tab failure your talking about. At the top of the arc, it's more likely to happened. Stall speed increases by the square root of the G load: For example if stall is 100kts at 1G then at 2Gs (the 2√ stall speed is 100 X 1.41 or 141kts. Depending on speed, the g-forces incurred would've been in excess of 15. What role might the chopped wing have played? higher stall...that's about it. Why did the plane abruptly nosedive? plane was out of control Was the pilot pulling the plane out of the dive trying to hit as few people as possible? Pilot was likely unconscious Why was there no fireball? Did the pilot describe his problem before the impact? LUCK If you look at my photos you’ll see the plane disintegrated on impact. The largest pieces I observed were about 1/4 of the engine, the oil pan, the prop blades. One of the most visible pieces was the partially deployed parachute and the mangled pack. It was a grim reminder of the human toll. I cannot imagine how a reconstruction will reveal much, if anything. Unless a part is found that fell off before the impact, or unless a meticulous reconstruction reveals missing parts, I am unsure how this investigation is going to reveal anything. I used to think that being an accident investigator would be an interesting and compelling job. After seeing what was in the debris field I have gained an heroic appreciation for first responders and accident investigators. Peace to the memory of those who lost their lives and peace to the collective memories of those who witnessed this tragic event. You can see some of my photos here: https://picasaweb.google.com/yahyoubetcha.net/RenoAirRaceCrash

Interesting, the exhaust on my 67 F is a "ball in socket" set up about 8" to 10" shorter and the bracket is on the firewall. It is a much lower profile set-up. In fact, I've never seen a Mooney with an exhaust like that...

Congratulations John, I am partial to that year and model. I think they were some of the best birds to come out of Kerrville. Do not be afraid to reach out with queastions.

Quote: carusoam Why would anyone want to operate intentionally oversquare by lowering RPM? I understand oversquare and highest rpm available (2,500 on the O1) = best power on T/O and climb out for a relatively short period of the life of the engine. But selecting lower RPMs with a high MP sounds like unusually high and unmeasurable ICPs (internal cylinder pressure). Even when running 250 deg ROP. You can drive an LT-1 Camaro in 6th gear at 1000 rpm around the neighborhood. Just because it can be done does not mean it should be done (picture a bucking bronco when the process gets out of balance). I expect high ICPs are not good for mechanical connections or piston rings. I think the data that we are missing would be related to the prop. What rpm is most efficient/powerful for the density altitude we are flying at. Best regards, -a-

Quote: 201er Very interesting response. I'm going to have to read those articles and give this some more thought. Does this mean that running 2700RPM at higher altitude is less bad than cruising 2700RPM down low (noise, engine wear, oil burn, etc)? However, I think you missed part of the oversquare point for high altitude and lower MP recommendations by POH. It would have been my guess that if 27"/2200RPM is allowed at sea level, that you would be good to use WOT above any altitude yielding 27" MP or less. However, if you look at the 4,000' performance table I posted, you'll see that although 26.2" MP are available (2400RPM column), a maximum of 24.4" is recommended for 2200RPM. This yields 62% power. There is clearly some kind of purposeful intent her rather than providing a 65% setting and whatever MP between 24.4" and 26.2" that would provide it. Also, they did not provide a 26.2" MP power setting for 2200RPM even though it probably would be available as well. Based on the table it doesn't seem that 2200RPM is an inefficient prop setting at 4000ft. In fact the opposite. 2400RPM and 23.3" yield 65% power, 9.2gph, and 152ktas. 2200RPM and 24.4" yield 62% power, 8.5gph, and 148ktas. My guess is that at 2200RPM and 25" you could get about 8.7gph and 150ktas. For these reasons, except if oversquare is the culprit, I cannot understand why the POH does not provide a 65% or full throttle power setting at 2200RPM at 4000ft as just one example.

The original airframe was certed without PC. The wing has adequate dihedral to make for a pretty stable platform in its own right. I cannot imagine any logical reason to remove or permanently disable the system unless it was being replaced with a modern AP.

A neutral density filter can be had for about $20 depending on application. I've seen folk have good luck with an ND2. YMMV.

Quote: AustinPynes I may just try to take one plate off and do a repair to get my feet wet. that is the only place I see past leaks at.

I have been into my tanks twice and my take is the following: 1) Polygone stripper works, it does not work fast, it does not work easily, it does not even work well... but it does work. 2) A low profile handleless Semco Dispensing Gun will run circles around a "can and brush" when it comes to quickly and accurately laying sealant. I got a new one on E-bay for $35, but I was lucky. They can be had fro under $200 used. Keep a brush handy for some of the detail work. 3) Flamemaster semkits work well. Use is CS 3204 B2 for fillet seams in the tank. Use CS 3330 B2 for access panels. A sloshing compound was used by the factory, I used PR-1005-L, some feel that the sloshing step is unnecessary. 4) No offense to José , but advising people that access panel sealant is "non bonding" and suggesting that integral tank sealant is a better option for sealing access panels is not just lousy advice, it borders on sadistic if the tanks ever need to be opened again. Removing the access panels when they are merely sealed with the "non bonding" sealant is a job. You could stand on the top panels with no screws in place and they would still not give way. 5) There's a reason why Mooney put mil-specs #s in the MX manual, all of the materials I've listed meet those mil-specs or are superseded by those mil-specs.

Quote: jlunseth Now I'll have to go look it up. It seems to me it was "Flying High Performance Singles and Twins" by John Eckalbar.

Quote: AustinPynes Now if I can just get a mechanic to call me back. It must be great business for A&Ps these days. One never calls me back even though he was a personal friend referral and I have emailed and left a VM. Another I have to call to talk to him as he will never call me. Seems the only ones that call back are farther away. Are A&Ps so busy they are pushing off work? Must be nice to have so much work you call back who sounds accomodating. Maybe it is me and I sound like a jerk in my emails and VMs. I will have to ask someone to review my messages. Cant be my breath as I havent met them yet.

Quote: Hank -For your last question, it seems that down low, WOT/2000 is rather similar to cruising on the interstate at 75 mph in 3rd gear instead of in 5th . . .

Quote: 201er I don't understand why a greater condition of being oversquared is permitted at sea level and higher power but not at higher altitude and lower power? There have been many times in cruise where I wanted to begin a descent leaving throttle full and simply pulling back the prop to reduce drag, but decided to bring the power back to the maximum POH applicable MP for that lower RPM setting. Is this really necessary?